Populism is Scary!!

 I’ve been seeing a lot of articles in the MSM that refer to the rise of anger in American consumers citizens as a new wave of populism.  As a matter of fact, we have had a veritable wave of populism in the press.  Inevitably the message coming through is “Populism is Scary!”  I’ve been planning on writing a post about this interesting phenomenon for the past few days, but the problem was that I didn’t have that one representative article that I could sink my teeth into.  There were lots of articles and columns that mentioned the rise of populist sentiment and alluded to the danger of this rising populism, but it was snippets within the discussion of other issues.

Thank God for David Brooks of the New York Times!  If you’re looking for the establisment view of the world he’s the go to guy, and he doesn’t dissappoint here.  His column today, The Populist Addiction, contains every establishment trope I could hope to find regarding populism.  I urge you to read it yourself, but here are some highlights.

These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.

And this:

So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems….

The populists have an Us versus Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.

There’s more.  As a said, read it yourself.  After reading Brooks on populism I was all fired up to unload on him with both barrels, but then I decided to read some of the comments to see what others thought.  I can conclusively say that I am not alone in my reaction to this column, but one comment in particular, from AnnS in Michigan lays it all out and I include it with a profound thanks for her wisdom.

No Mr. Brooks IT DOES NOT “always” fail. Worked a treat in the 1930s – you know, the decade when the have-much-mores’ were forced to share with the other 95%.

You and most of the NYT staff, and in particular your fellow columnist, Friedman, need to understand that The words “Populist” and “Populism” are not

(1) curses.

(2) description of appalling beliefs

(3) descriptive of a mob mentality.

and that the words Populism and Populist are exactly how my ancestors whipped up the frenzy that lead to them becoming traitors and rebelling against their government aka “The American Revolution.” The words Populism and Populist are derived from the same source and related to the word “population” and “populace” (those who live in a place”.) Populism is no more than the expression of the will of We The People – the majority of We The People. The very idea of “We The People” is populism!

What are you and your fellow journalists and columnists smoking and drinking?

(1) Bankers DESERVE a populist backlash. Worked a treat on controlling them in the 1930s. They have BETRAYED and STOLEN from the “population” of this country. They need to be firmly reined in, controlled and chastised. They still do NOT get it and continue slurping at their trough of bonuses when the trough was filled by the money from the populace.

(2) Americans LOVE angry politicians who are expressing the will of the populace.

Huey Long was the only politician whom FDR ever considered a serious threat. Huey Long was not just ‘angry’, he was outraged, furious and very very vocal. Regardless of his shennanigans and corrupt actions in gaming the political system, he did the one thing that made the populace love him. He stood up and roared their anger about being left behind in the American society. Huey Long was outrageously populist.

FDR was angry and the voters loved it. On Oct 31, 1936 while campaigning for his second term, he gave a speech at Madison Square Garden. Remember the lines? The phrases that sent Wall St into panic attacks and had them reaching for the smelling salts? FDR stood before the voters and said these words (excerpts – not the whole speech)

“More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: ‘Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.’

“The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march. It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people….

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent…..

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace; business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master….” (10/31/1936 FDR)

And the crowds roared and screamed in excitement. And gave him close to 24% more votes than he had gotten in 1932.

So oh yes, please understand and do tell your co-workers that

(1) “Populism” is NOT an obscenity and that their disdain for the ‘populace’ and the demands of the populace is patronizing, offensive and the talking heads and Congress critters are NOT the ‘betters’ of the populace and should [not] be left to decide what is ‘best.’ (They certainly have buggered it up enough!)

(2) And angry populist politicians win and have won in more recent history than William Jennings Bryan.

Thank you AnnS from MI.  I really could not have said it better myself.  And I love the phrase “worked a treat!”

RadicalNOTA